(CNS News) -- Conservative host Mark Levin blasted both Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar, as well as Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts for their handling of the presidential election.
Levin claims that Boockvar, by counting votes that arrived after Election Day without valid postmarks, violated Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which reads, in part:
“Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress."
"The reason why election statutes, election laws, were left to the states...is because the states demanded it or they wouldn't ratify the Constitution of the United States," Levin said. "They specifically rejected federal election laws, they specifically rejected judicial review, they specifically rejected the governor, and, of course, they would've rejected the secretary of state."
Levin contends that Chief Justice Roberts was wrong not to take up a case pertaining to this law in Pennsylvania prior to the election on Tuesday.
Below is a transcript of the segment:
Mark Levin: Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution provides that, quote -- ready? -- “each state shall appoint, in such manner” -- ready? -- “as the legislature thereof may direct” -- hello, hello, wow! -- “equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in the Congress.”
The legislatures determine how the electors for the electoral college are going to be chosen. In other words, the legislatures decide and set election law. Now, let me give you a further history, a further history that a senator, a former governor, and a congressman do not know. The reason why election statutes, election laws, were left to the states, Mr. Producer, is because the states demanded it or they wouldn't ratify the Constitution of the United States. They did not want the federal government interfering with the manner in which they set the vote, nor did they want courts interfering with a political -- hello!-- political process, such as how the legislature sets the election laws, nor did they want a governor to be involved in the process. They specifically rejected federal election laws, they specifically rejected judicial review, they specifically rejected the governor, and, of course, they would've rejected the secretary of state.
“Hey, you know what? Remember the Voting Rights Act?”
“Well, I'm extending voting for three days.”
What, what, what? Because they were a thousand times smarter than the morons who are elected office today, the morons who are on television, and the morons with black robes in the courts. They said the legislature sets the election laws and that's it.
And that's it.
Now, we're not talking about violating civil rights. We're not talking about anything like that. We're talking about setting the laws: when you vote, how you vote, how it's counted. That's why you now have nationwide anarchy. Anarchy.
Incredible. And so now the president and his lawyers say, you know what, and I'm just talking about this aspect of one lawsuit in Pennsylvania and the Republican Party of the state have challenged this. And what did the U.S. Supreme Court do? What did the U.S. Supreme Court do? Not the minority. What did the majority do under the leadership of the United States chief for the Supreme Court of the United States? What do they do? Chief Justice?
“Well, you know, we can't really get involved in that.” Roberts -- listen to how moronic this is. “It's not really a federal issue. I mean, it's a state Supreme Court, we really shouldn't get involved in this.” Excuse me? It's the federal Constitution. It's a federal article. It's a federal section. It's a federal clause in the Constitution. Now, here's what's amazing about this. Roberts will get involved in healthcare with Obamacare. He'll get involved in gay rights. He'll get involved in all kinds of stuff, Roberts will, but when it actually comes to upholding and enforcing Article II of the Constitution: “you know what, I don't think we should get involved in this.”
But they are going to get involved in that, you know why? Because all the court did there is say "we're not taking this up on an emergency basis." So it's still sitting there in certiorari, that is, the appeal is still there; the court has accepted it. So now what are they going to do? I'll tell you what they're going to do. They're going to punt again. You have three constitutionalists on that court, four by the time you have Barrett who are going to say, "wait a minute, Article II," and then you're going to have Roberts, well, you might even have Kavanaugh, based on the way he's been getting. And what are they going to say? “Well, we can't disenfranchise, you know, 112,000 people who voted under these circumstances.” Exactly what Alito warned when Justice Alito said, “what are we going to do? Wait till after they vote?”
That's going to make it even harder for the court, ladies and gentlemen. So the bottom line is, this is all at the feet of the chief justice of the United States, John Roberts because he cares when he goes to the Kennedy Center and watches the ballet or when he goes to a baseball game at Orioles Park -- I've seen him there over the years -- or whatever, that he is going to be embraced and appreciated by the beautiful people, that is, leftists. He's also a leaker because all these stories he looks so good and other justices look so bad. Well, then you know who the leaker is.
So that's the problem in one state. There's a similar problem in North Carolina, where the Board of Elections goes, “you know what, we're going to extend the counting.”
“Where'd that come from? That's not--”
“Too bad. Too bad, too bad.”
And so now what's going to happen? So now, the president and his lawyers are going to be trashed because they've taken the only avenue they can to challenge this, ladies and gentlemen. The Republicans like Rubio and Christie, and Kinzinger and they're more than that -- they just want him to take the bullet, be done with it, move on to 2024, “we've got better things to do.” That's what they want.
“You know, this Trump, he's a dictator.” Trump's trying to uphold the Federal Constitution. Trump's trying to hold these state statutes, not the state supreme courts, not the state boards of elections. Trump and his people are trying to uphold the rule of law.